I'm going to put this all over here because I simply don't want it cluttering up the Equipment page.
My original response to this video: "I'm not entirely certain how this debunks their use as a detection tool. First of all you've proven that everything from a minor to major vibration or movement does not trigger the ball. Second, you've proven that radio signals, etc don't affect it because the tiny ball is aluminum. So, who is to say the ghost is not manipulating the tiny ball through a micro-movement or some sort of energy transfer? I'm not saying they are, but this doesn't really debunk them as "not" detecting something which can not be seen. I was kind of hoping there was something inside that could easily explain their activation, but all you've proven it's not humans intentionally doing it (which we already knew). I'm genuinely curious, I want to understand. I was even hoping you'd expose some defect or commonality in the ball that triggers them. How did you prove it's not something paranormal triggering the cat ball? ~Kevin"
The reply I received: "Please provide any evidence you have to prove these balls detect paranormal activity, this video proves they produce false positives but I’ll wait to be proven wrong with your evidence"
Another reply "karma4U2: it proves you can’t use cat balls as evidence, if you think otherwise you should go back to ghost hunting"
And my response: "Psi Paranormal: No it doesn't. How does it prove that? How can you prove paranormal activity without any means of testing it?
You're basically saying there is no scientific way to test for paranormal activity as every human invention would have some degree of inaccuracy. All this video has proven is that the cat ball can be affected by an unseen influence (be it a change in temperature or paranormal) but it does not completely discredit their use. I'm not saying they absolutely do work, or that what they detect is paranormal, but until you can scientifically gauge that their 'activity' was caused by something 'known' (because you tested and proved it at the time) then it remains 'unknown'.
I will say I did have a cat ball that was going off. Ok, must be a defect, right? Then I asked it to go off twice in a row. And it did. So, I guess it was must have been the vibrations from my voice, particularly the word "twice" that traveled across the room and triggered the cat ball, through the affecting of temperature and humidity, to flash twice in a row? Again, not saying it was "factually paranormal", all of my evidence is, at the most, "unexplained" and that's typically less than 1% of the total evidence that was gathered during the investigation.
I am curious though, if you can't use cat balls then what's left to prove the existence of the paranormal? Serious question. I want to know what you would use Psi Paranormal to prove it scientifically. Remember, you can not name any devices, electronic or otherwise, manufactured by humans, for your answer because they all have the percentage of a potential flaw in their design therefore, by your standard, are inadmissible."
The reply I received: "Please provide any evidence you have to prove these balls detect paranormal activity, this video proves they produce false positives but I’ll wait to be proven wrong with your evidence"
Another reply "karma4U2: it proves you can’t use cat balls as evidence, if you think otherwise you should go back to ghost hunting"
And my response: "Psi Paranormal: No it doesn't. How does it prove that? How can you prove paranormal activity without any means of testing it?
You're basically saying there is no scientific way to test for paranormal activity as every human invention would have some degree of inaccuracy. All this video has proven is that the cat ball can be affected by an unseen influence (be it a change in temperature or paranormal) but it does not completely discredit their use. I'm not saying they absolutely do work, or that what they detect is paranormal, but until you can scientifically gauge that their 'activity' was caused by something 'known' (because you tested and proved it at the time) then it remains 'unknown'.
I will say I did have a cat ball that was going off. Ok, must be a defect, right? Then I asked it to go off twice in a row. And it did. So, I guess it was must have been the vibrations from my voice, particularly the word "twice" that traveled across the room and triggered the cat ball, through the affecting of temperature and humidity, to flash twice in a row? Again, not saying it was "factually paranormal", all of my evidence is, at the most, "unexplained" and that's typically less than 1% of the total evidence that was gathered during the investigation.
I am curious though, if you can't use cat balls then what's left to prove the existence of the paranormal? Serious question. I want to know what you would use Psi Paranormal to prove it scientifically. Remember, you can not name any devices, electronic or otherwise, manufactured by humans, for your answer because they all have the percentage of a potential flaw in their design therefore, by your standard, are inadmissible."
I would love to see a video that does a scientific deep dive into cat balls, their effectiveness or complete ineffectiveness as a paranormal detection tool, however, this video does not achieve this result.
After much debate on this I have yet to see any evidence debunking cat balls. I'm not, nor have I, said that cat balls are an accurate detection tool. What I said was this video does not discredit them and only provides a theory about their ineffectiveness. If we apply this theory to all electronics then no human made device can be used to detect the presence of paranormal activity as all devices results can be influenced either by the device design or an external factor. Just because a device is meant for cats and costs $2 does not make it any more or less valid as a detection tool. It is only through the scientific dissection of the cat ball could you determine it's impassible flaws (if any). I would love to see a video dissecting the cat balls in a scientific manner to either prove or disprove their effectiveness (in the same way one dissects a phone APP) but this video simply isn't it.
A comment I made to someone else: "Doubt it. Psi sounds like someone who, even in the absence of any evidence proving it was explainable, would still refuse to accept it was "unexplained" and potentially "paranormal". It sounds like Psi doesn't have any belief in the paranormal, which is fine, I just wish he did a better job at discrediting devices used to potentially detect it."
Their reply: "You clearly don’t know our beliefs and are assuming… walk on past now have a nice day"
I did reply: "No I don't, but speaking of assumptions you've done a great deal of that in your replies as you try to discredit everyone's arguments while providing absolutely no evidence to support your theory. I'm sorry that your theory about cat balls was questioned but you brought that upon yourself. Next time maybe be a bit more science and a bit less theory and people might agree with you. Fin."
Really though, "assuming"? Because that's what we're seeing here with this video. "I cracked open a cat ball to show you what's inside therefore it does not detect paranormal activity". Huh? OK, if that doesn't, why does anything else? Despite asking countless times the only answer they gave was that one above. Instead of arguing 'hey this device does', or 'hey the dozens of people who disagree with us have a valid argument so let's do a deeper dive into catballs' the answer is simply 'It doesn't do it, now move along you simple minded ghost hunters'. I'm sorry but I will never accept "I say, therefore it is" as a conclusion."
After much debate on this I have yet to see any evidence debunking cat balls. I'm not, nor have I, said that cat balls are an accurate detection tool. What I said was this video does not discredit them and only provides a theory about their ineffectiveness. If we apply this theory to all electronics then no human made device can be used to detect the presence of paranormal activity as all devices results can be influenced either by the device design or an external factor. Just because a device is meant for cats and costs $2 does not make it any more or less valid as a detection tool. It is only through the scientific dissection of the cat ball could you determine it's impassible flaws (if any). I would love to see a video dissecting the cat balls in a scientific manner to either prove or disprove their effectiveness (in the same way one dissects a phone APP) but this video simply isn't it.
A comment I made to someone else: "Doubt it. Psi sounds like someone who, even in the absence of any evidence proving it was explainable, would still refuse to accept it was "unexplained" and potentially "paranormal". It sounds like Psi doesn't have any belief in the paranormal, which is fine, I just wish he did a better job at discrediting devices used to potentially detect it."
Their reply: "You clearly don’t know our beliefs and are assuming… walk on past now have a nice day"
I did reply: "No I don't, but speaking of assumptions you've done a great deal of that in your replies as you try to discredit everyone's arguments while providing absolutely no evidence to support your theory. I'm sorry that your theory about cat balls was questioned but you brought that upon yourself. Next time maybe be a bit more science and a bit less theory and people might agree with you. Fin."
Really though, "assuming"? Because that's what we're seeing here with this video. "I cracked open a cat ball to show you what's inside therefore it does not detect paranormal activity". Huh? OK, if that doesn't, why does anything else? Despite asking countless times the only answer they gave was that one above. Instead of arguing 'hey this device does', or 'hey the dozens of people who disagree with us have a valid argument so let's do a deeper dive into catballs' the answer is simply 'It doesn't do it, now move along you simple minded ghost hunters'. I'm sorry but I will never accept "I say, therefore it is" as a conclusion."
|
I know I'm behind on this whole trying to make myself look relevant thing, but is it common practice on YouTube to heart like your own comments?
|